Champion, Mike wrote:
>For what it's worth, we're wrestling with a related issue in the WSA group
>(and the WS CG) -- not IP per se, but getting the cooperation (or statement
>of unwillingness to do so) of the authors of a technology specification that
>has not been Submitted to the W3C in making it available to a W3C WG. The
>way forward that seems to make the most sense (after a few weeks of public
>and private discussions) is for the W3C Management to seek the information
>from the stakeholders. The results will available to the WG for *technical*
>contingency planning, and to the W3C Director and Advisory Committee for
>ultimate decisions on how to trade off the technical, legal, and "political"
>issues.
>
>Something similar seems the best way forward here -- let the people who
>understand the legalistic, uhh, smelly stuff do what they know how to do,
>let the WG deal with the technical issues, and let the decision makers
>decide on the basis of both inputs.
>That may be to send the problem back to the WG to work around. That would
>be a rotten situation ... but frankly, the company that forced us into that
>situation would get so much bad publicity IMHO that I can't imagine the
>value of the IP outweighing it.
>
>
No doubt that this sort of thing may turn out to be the best course
forward. It still seems to me that it is not correct to close the issue
and try to advance the specification before getting a resolution. It
seems to me that the issue should remain open while seeking a resolution
through W3C or a PAG, etc., unless the WG fundamentally disagrees that
it is an issue or has resolved it. If this is spelled out somewhere,
then I missed it.
Ray Whitmer
rayw@netscape.com